[Gem]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I haven't been speaking about non existence, I have been speaking of not self and non self in the ways as you have described.

Non self as you described is empty of identification, all I am saying is that if I spoke face to face with a supposed 'non self' I would know whether there is self identification had or not.

I can't for the life of me expect to hold a conversation with such a non self. For starters, there would be no acknowledgement of me being present speaking to them.

In order to relate to me speaking to them, they would have to firstly identify with themselves.

What is also apparent in my eyes is that to hold a theory about the nature of all things including oneself there has to be an identification with oneself. If one wants to conclude that the chair isn't really a chair or the identification of the chair is delusional then there has to be an identification to what you are that can be deluded or not. There has to be an identification that isn't deluded that can conclude a theory about self and no self.

But you can see a chair is a composite of parts and there is no 'actual' chair.

The whole neti neti approach is riddled with identifications and knowings that are mindful that has to relate to what you think / know in regards to what you are.

In the same way you can see any sensation and know it is anatta.

The neti neti chap says I am not this, but has to declare I AM that. That is an self identification. What is that, that can identify with themselves? Whatever they call that, will be a self reference.

You know there is experience and you know it is not-I.

There really is no point for anyone to say I am not sitting down when they hold onto a theory of that, that derives through some mental gymnastic routine.

I always mention the meditation because Buddhist philosophy is not apart from meditation. They explain that the first level of understanding is you hear the philosophy (dhamma) and it makes a bit of sense intellectually, so you investigate it in meditation and get direct insight into it.

I find all this talk of non self, not self, very strange indeed in regards to experiencing this world, such individuals see a chair and go and sit on it. They don't go and sit on a ducks head instead. They know the difference because they are conditioned to know the difference, and one is conditioned to know what delusions are. One cannot understand these theories unless one is reflected within them.

Of course. They sit on the chair but without the delusion that there is any actuality to 'chair'.

So non identified buddhists that sit cross legged saying some mantra day in and day out are doing so because of identification rather than not.

Buddhist meditation (mindfulness) is to 'see it as it is'. You don't do anything such as fabricate a mantra or make anything happen. You cease all volition and observe what already happens to be.

Perhaps they don't realize that when they identify with something they are identifying with themselves.

x daz x

When a meditator notices their thoughts going 'oh me my mine and I' they see it is delusional, fabrication, just thoughts, and the whole process and operation of it - and they suddenly realise 'this is what I have been doing my whole life'. That moment of recognition is called 'insight'. After one has the insight into it, it is thereafter easily recognised, and can no longer pass by unawares.